In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court has made it clear that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 cannot be granted unless the applicant provides clear evidence of actual loss or detriment caused by the delay in receiving information.
The case involved Amit Anand, who sought compensation from the State Information Commission, similar to what was granted to other applicants including Payal Kumari in a previous judgment. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, who presided over the matter, ruled against the petitioner citing lack of proof of any real damage suffered.
The petitioner had filed an RTI application in August 2017 requesting a copy of the enlistment register from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB). After receiving no response, he filed both the first and second appeals. Although the Information Commission eventually ordered the information to be provided, it was declared unavailable and vague. The Commission acknowledged that there were delays in 16 related cases due to inefficiencies within the BSEB, and asked the Board to explain why compensation of ₹50 lakh should not be imposed and distributed among the applicants. However, no specific compensation was granted to Amit Anand.
The court emphasized:
“The petitioner has not produced any chit of paper/materials whatsoever either before the State Information Commission or before this Court, to demonstrate the extent of loss or detriment suffered by him.”
Read Also:- Schizophrenia Alone Not Valid Ground for Divorce Without Proven Severity: Patna High Court
Amit Anand argued that the delay in receiving his Migration Certificate cost him admission to the LLB program at Patna Law College. However, the Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the State Commission’s order dated 16.08.2019, which disposed of his appeal without awarding compensation. Further, he had not submitted any formal application requesting compensation under Section 19(8)(b), nor did he present evidence showing any quantifiable loss.
“In cases where compensation was awarded, the matter involved non-supply of answer books. In this case, the information was ultimately provided and the petitioner sought a different type of record,” stated the Court.
The Court concluded that the requirements for compensation were not met in this case and upheld the Commission’s original decision. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Case Title: Amit Anand vs Bihar Information Commission and Others
